Bolitics The New Condem Government

[MakemineVanilla]

Cameron is right, the Greens should be included if UKIP are.

 

As others have pointed out, the reasons are obvious.

 

If Farage will be there to take votes off Cameron, why not have the Greens present, who are likely to take votes of Miliband?

 

I am more doubtful as to why the Lib-Dems are automatically invited - we already know that they will adapt their policies to whichever party they form a coalition with.

[bickster]

The BNP have ceased to exist in any meaningful level, might explain something

[bickster]

I am more doubtful as to why the Lib-Dems are automatically invited - we already know that they will adapt their policies to whichever party they form a coalition with.

Well its obvious why they are invited, they have a substantial number of MPs and a significant share of the vote. But at the last election in the UK, you know, the European one that UKIP "won", they got less votes than the Greens, they are currently only the fifth largest party in the UK in terms of share of the vote so you also do have a point.

[tonyh29]

but UKIP didn't win other wise they would be rulers of Europe or something 

[sharkyvilla]

Cameron is right, the Greens should be included if UKIP are.

Exactly. It's a convenient thing Cameron can hide behind if he really doesn't want to debate but it seems logical to me to have the Greens there for one of the debates. I don't know why Cameron is so scared, I know Milliband will only have to avoid tripping over his shoe laces and knocking himself out on the podium to exceed expectations but Cameron should be able to spin the 'achievements' of this government quite well. I reckon he can only get a majority if he takes on the others, especially Farage, head on.

[tonyh29]

 

Cameron is right, the Greens should be included if UKIP are.

 I know Milliband will only have to avoid tripping over his shoe laces and knocking himself out on the podium to exceed expectations

 

 

that's basically Ed buggered then ....

[bickster]

Greens now claiming to have more actual members than UKIP. At least 2000 joined yesterday apparently

[tonyh29]

Greens now claiming to have more actual members than UKIP. At least 2000 joined yesterday apparently

I hope they all applied via pen and paper killing countless trees as a result

[darrenm]

I really wish labour had someone in charge who you felt you could actually happily put in power. While the Tories are killing people by dismantling the NHS there's no real alternative to vote for.

[bickster]

I really wish labour had someone in charge who you felt you could actually happily put in power. While the Tories are killing people by dismantling the NHS there's no real alternative to vote for.

There really is you know, even if that party won't get elected in your seat a vote for them is still worthwhile. I wouldn't consider the NHS safe in Labour's hands anyway. They started the privatisation, they also wasted a billion pounds on a computer system for the NHS that experts said was doomed to failure before the project started, the experts were right, though the waste did only come in at double the budget and produced nothing.

[snowychap]

I see that Mme Lagarde is likely to be Osborne's bestest pal again now because she's praised the UK's economic recovery (having been critical in 2013 ... and supportive before and critical before that, &c.).

Further evidence that the IMF is a load of old cock, I think.

[peterms]

So, pensioner bonds.

The government has chosen to sell bonds to a selected group of people (affluent pensioners) at an interest rate of 4%, when it could have sold them on the market for, what, 0.6%?

This has the (intended) effect of needlessly transferring a fairly large amount of money from the general public to said affluent pensioners, for no discernable public gain, but for electoral advantage for the Conservative Party.

If a local authority had done something similar, the District Auditor would have quantified the avoidable loss, and the councillors responsible would have been disbarred from public office and made individually and severally liable for the loss.

But that law doesn't apply to central government.

[Eames]

So, pensioner bonds.

The government has chosen to sell bonds to a selected group of people (affluent pensioners) at an interest rate of 4%, when it could have sold them on the market for, what, 0.6%?

This has the (intended) effect of needlessly transferring a fairly large amount of money from the general public to said affluent pensioners, for no discernable public gain, but for electoral advantage for the Conservative Party.

If a local authority had done something similar, the District Auditor would have quantified the avoidable loss, and the councillors responsible would have been disbarred from public office and made individually and severally liable for the loss.

But that law doesn't apply to central government.

Government offering preferential treatment/policies to its supporters? 

 

Move on. Nothing to see here. 

[Risso]

So, pensioner bonds.

The government has chosen to sell bonds to a selected group of people (affluent pensioners) at an interest rate of 4%, when it could have sold them on the market for, what, 0.6%?

This has the (intended) effect of needlessly transferring a fairly large amount of money from the general public to said affluent pensioners, for no discernable public gain, but for electoral advantage for the Conservative Party.

If a local authority had done something similar, the District Auditor would have quantified the avoidable loss, and the councillors responsible would have been disbarred from public office and made individually and severally liable for the loss.

But that law doesn't apply to central government.

 

"The minimum investment per person and per bond is £500 up to a maximum of £10,000"

 

The fat cat, champagne-guzzling, grey-haired BASTARDS!

 

They'll all be blowing that interest on frivolities like heating and food, the scum.

[tonyh29]

So, pensioner bonds.

The government has chosen to sell bonds to a selected group of people (affluent pensioners) at an interest rate of 4%, when it could have sold them on the market for, what, 0.6%?

This has the (intended) effect of needlessly transferring a fairly large amount of money from the general public to said affluent pensioners, for no discernable public gain, but for electoral advantage for the Conservative Party.

If a local authority had done something similar, the District Auditor would have quantified the avoidable loss, and the councillors responsible would have been disbarred from public office and made individually and severally liable for the loss.

But that law doesn't apply to central government.

 

I thought these went on sale in December  via the NS&I website , the phone or by post 

 

I must have missed the law change where certain  people got prevented from buying a stamp or having an internet connection   

[Jon]

 

So, pensioner bonds.

The government has chosen to sell bonds to a selected group of people (affluent pensioners) at an interest rate of 4%, when it could have sold them on the market for, what, 0.6%?

This has the (intended) effect of needlessly transferring a fairly large amount of money from the general public to said affluent pensioners, for no discernable public gain, but for electoral advantage for the Conservative Party.

If a local authority had done something similar, the District Auditor would have quantified the avoidable loss, and the councillors responsible would have been disbarred from public office and made individually and severally liable for the loss.

But that law doesn't apply to central government.

Government offering preferential treatment/policies to its supporters? 

 

Move on. Nothing to see here. 

 

Indeed. It's perhaps a move to firm up some of the blue rinse wavering potential Kipper voters. I doubt it's going to have an enormous effect, but every little helps.

[peterms]

"The minimum investment per person and per bond is £500 up to a maximum of £10,000"

 

The fat cat, champagne-guzzling, grey-haired BASTARDS!

 

They'll all be blowing that interest on frivolities like heating and food, the scum.

If you're disputing that it's the wealthier pensioners who this is aimed at and who are taking it up, you'll be the first person I've heard of to do so.

And the people who can afford to lock up £20,000 per person in order to get a higher rate of interest aren't those who will be struggling to pay for heating and food. That much should be obvious to anyone.

[peterms]

I must have missed the law change where certain  people got prevented from buying a stamp or having an internet connection

The bit you seem to miss is the part about needing to pay £20,000. The application process is open to all. It's the £20k that many will find more of a problem.

Which takes us back to the question why it is in any respect a reasonable use of public money to pay artificially high interest rates to those least in need of the extra payments.

And of course the only sensible answer is, it's not.

[Risso]

 

I must have missed the law change where certain  people got prevented from buying a stamp or having an internet connection

The bit you seem to miss is the part about needing to pay £20,000. The application process is open to all. It's the £20k that many will find more of a problem.

Which takes us back to the question why it is in any respect a reasonable use of public money to pay artificially high interest rates to those least in need of the extra payments.

And of course the only sensible answer is, it's not.

 

 

Lots of left-leaning institutions concerned with the welfare of the elderly have pointed to low interest rates as being a cause of pensioner poverty, and this is a measure designed to alleviate that.

[peterms]

Lots of left-leaning institutions concerned with the welfare of the elderly have pointed to low interest rates as being a cause of pensioner poverty, and this is a measure designed to alleviate that.

Any measure intended to tackle pensioner poverty would be aimed at poor pensioners, by definition. This is aimed at better-off pensioners. It's a crude electoral bribe, no more, no less.